History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c4.2

v1.c4.2

Sec. 4 pp. 12-20 *The Dharmasūtra of Gautama.* Mr. Batakrishna Ghose ( in I. H. Q. vol. III for 1927, p. 607 ff ) has an exhaustive note on the mutual relations of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. He holds that Gautama is not the oldest extant author, that Āp. and Gautama stand in the same relation as Manu and Yājñavalkya, that Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is not older than Āpastambadharmasūtra, that the reference to the views of some in Gautama 15. 30 may easily be to Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 21. Some of the reasons on which he relies for these views have already been examined in the body of the work. That the extant sūtra of Gautama has been in some places revised may be admitted ; but that Gautama as an author on dharma preceded Āpastamba's work cannot be denied. There is nothing of chronological value so far as Gautama is concerned in Āpastamba's rejection of the view of Śvetaketu that even a married man should continue Veda-study. That Āpastamba says nothing about mixed castes is on a par with his silence as to *niyoga* and the secondary sons. Āpastamba knew the lowest castes such as Cāṇḍāla and Paulkasa and Vaiṇa ( Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 6 ). As to beef-eating allowed by Āpastamba, vide p. 45 of text and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa ( S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 11 where beef-eating is not allowed to a dīkṣita ). Doctors of law were not agreed on many points of dharma and hence no certain chronological conclusion about individual authors can be drawn merely from their views on certain points. It is not correct to say as Mr. Ghose does that Āpastamba knows no fines for crimes. Āpastamba does say that in case of dispute between litigants elders were to decide, that in case of doubt they were to decide by inference or divine proof, that witnesses were to tell the truth and that if the witnesses were found to be false they were to be fined ( II. 11. 29. 5-8 ). This shows that fines were not unheard of in Āpastamba's days and if he omits a detailed statement the reason must be sought for elsewhere than in his being prior to all dharmasūtras. Fines for crimes are as old as the Taittirīya Saṁhitā II. 6. 10. 2.